Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 229

ORDER re #215 Plaintiff's Request for Additional Depositions and #228 , granting in part and denying in part Request. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 7/21/2011. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO TAKE ADDITIONAL
DEPOSITIONS

GOOGLE INC.,

15

No. C-10-03561-WHA (DMR)

Defendant.
___________________________________/

16
17

Before the court is the parties’ July 14, 2011 Joint Letter Regarding Oracle’s Request for

18

Four Additional Depositions (“Letter”). [Docket No. 215.] In the Letter, Plaintiff Oracle America,

19

Inc. seeks to depose Larry Page, Dipchand Nishar, Bob Lee, and Tim Lindholm. (Letter at 1-2.)

20

These depositions would supplement the ten that it already has taken pursuant to the limit

21

established by Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A)(i).

22

Defendant Google, Inc. opposes Plaintiff’s request. (Letter at 5-8.) The court conducted a

23

telephonic hearing on July 21, 2011. This order summarizes the rulings made by the court during

24

the hearing.

25

Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party wishing to take more than

26

ten depositions without consent of other parties to obtain leave from the Court to proceed. Fed. R.

27

Civ. P. 30(a)(2). Moreover, in the present case, the presiding District Judge has forbidden

28

“enlargements of the limitations on discovery in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . . . until after

1

counsel have demonstrated that they will behave reasonably” during discovery. [Docket No. 56.]

2

When evaluating a party’s request to expand discovery limitations, the court must ensure that the

3

discovery sought is “relevant to [the] party’s claim[s] or defense[s]” and not unreasonably

4

cumulative, duplicative, or burdensome. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).

5

As set forth below, in light of these factors and the arguments presented in the Letter and the

6

July 21, 2011 hearing, the court finds that Oracle made a sufficient showing to justify three limited

7

depositions.

8

Larry Page is Google’s CEO. Oracle seeks to depose Mr. Page regarding his knowledge of

license for Android, as well as Mr. Page’s decision to purchase Android, Inc. due to its strategic

11
For the Northern District of California

the negotiations between Sun and Google that took place between 2005 and 2010 to obtain a Java

10

United States District Court

9

value. Oracle may depose Mr. Page for a maximum of two hours, excluding breaks, solely on topics

12

relevant to the willfulness of Defendant’s alleged patent infringement, and the value of Android to

13

Defendant.1

14

Dipchand Nishar is a former Google employee. The role he played at Google is unclear.

15

Oracle points to Mr. Nishar’s personal description on his LinkedIn page to assert that Mr. Nishar

16

“started and managed Google’s mobile initiatives worldwide” in 2005-2007. Oracle also asserts that

17

Mr. Nishar made joint presentations to high level executives that included statements about

18

Google’s “need for licensing,” which may be relevant to Oracle’s claims for willful infringement.

19

Google

20

counters that Mr. Nishar was a senior director for products in the Asia/Pacific region, and was “not a

21

major player” with respect to Android or Google’s mobile business. Google also asserts that

22

documents do not clearly tie Mr. Nishar to the joint presentations and that Oracle has already had

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

Oracle claims that Mr. Page participated in Google’s negotiations with Sun for a Java license. Even
though Google asserts that Mr. Page was not personally at the bargaining table, Google admits that Mr. Page
received briefings on the negotiations. Given the importance of Android to Google’s business, it is highly
likely that Mr. Page participated in decision-making regarding the licensing negotiations. Therefore, Plaintiff
also has satisfied the court that Mr. Page likely “has unique first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge of facts at
issue in the case” and that Plaintiff “has exhausted other less intrusive discovery methods” to obtain the
information it seeks in its proposed deposition. Affinity Labs. of Tex. v. Apple, Inc., No. C 09-4436 CW, 2011
WL 1753982, at *15 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011) (detailing factors required to perform “apex deposition”)
(citing Websidestory, Inc. v. Netratings, Inc., No. C 06-408, 2007 WL 1120567, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr.6,
2007)).

2

1

ample opportunity to depose Mr. Rubin about the joint presentations. Oracle has not established that

2

Mr. Nishar has relevant, non-duplicative, non-cumulative knowledge that justifies an additional

3

deposition. The court therefore denies Oracle’s request to depose Mr. Nishar.

4

Bob Lee is a former Google employee who was a Senior Software Engineer with a high level

5

of responsibility regarding core library development for Android. Oracle asserts that Mr. Lee’s

6

name is tied to a significant number of documents, including some that indicate awareness of the

7

need for licenses, which may be relevant to Oracle’s claims for willful infringement. Oracle may

8

depose Mr. Lee for a maximum of two hours, excluding breaks, solely on topics relevant to the

9

willfulness of Defendant’s alleged patent infringement.
Tim Lindholm is an engineer, and a former Sun employee who has worked for Google since
approximately 2004. Oracle asserts that Mr. Lindholm was involved in the negotiations between

12

Sun and Google for a Java license in the 2005-2006 time period as a technical advisor in a position

13

to evaluate the necessity of licensing. According to Oracle, Mr Lindholm also engaged in high level

14

discussions in 2010 on the question of whether Google had viable non-infringing alternatives.

15

Oracle may depose Mr. Lindholm for a maximum of two hours, excluding breaks, solely on topics

16

relevant to the willfulness of Defendant’s alleged patent infringement.

RT

Dated: July 21, 2011

ER

H

21

ERED

. Ryu
onna M
Judge D

NO

20

O ORD

R NIA

19

IT IS S

LI

IT IS SO ORDERED.

A

18

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T

FO

S

17
UNIT
ED

For the Northern District of California

11

RT
U
O

United States District Court

10

N

OF
D IS T
RYURIC T

C

DONNA M.
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3